Clearly, when one computer goes down in Salt Lake City and it drags down America’s entire air traffic system, something needs to be done. At any rate, if you’re in the US and you have a flight to catch today, make sure to check its status before heading to the airport. [AP]

Now, the FAA says the airlines need approval from the FAA’s hazardous materials division, and has asked them not to store spare lithium ion batteries for the readers on planes. A few airlines went through some special training to get the OK, but at least Delta and JetBlue don’t carry spares or charge the readers on board at all.

The current rate for gadgets exploding on planes is about one every four months, says a former NTSB dude. Which isn’t so bad, considering there are millions of flights happening in that time period. Still, I have the feeling this xkcd comic is going to stay funny for the reasons it’s funny now for like another year, max. [NYT]

The first problem is, nearly all electronics are lumped together, despite differences in their innards and the services they perform. The second problem is this constant generic request to turn them “off”. Until airlines can speak coherently about eBooks, smartphones, tablets and other traveller-friendly gadgets—and address the various states of rest between “on” and “off”—the system remains in a sphere of stupidity. Whether this is mildly annoying or potentially deadly remains to be seen.

The last time I flew, I had in my carry-on bag three cameras, three laptops, a smartphone and a classic iPod. Judging from the long security lines, I wasn’t the only one trucking plentiful gadgetry.

When I got on the plane, the flight attendant asked everyone to turn “off” phones and other portable electronics. She appeared at my side as I was switching my iPhone to aeroplane mode and repeated, “It’s time to turn off your portable electronics.” I replied, “That’s what I’m doing.” She sneered like a 1930s copper who’d just collared the dumbest guy in the bootlegging operation: “So flipping through screens is how you turn it off? There’s no on-off switch on the side?” She thought she’d caught me in a lie. I just looked back in disbelief, made the screen magically go dark, and put my supposedly “off” phone back in my pocket, satisfying whatever interpretation of the rules was in this poor misinformed woman’s head.

On another leg of our journey, just before takeoff, a flight attendant pointed to the eBook reader my wife was using and said in a stern voice, “Please turn off all portable electronics”. She did not ask the gentleman seated next to us to turn off his digital watch, though it may well have been drawing more power at the time.

Worst of all, she did not check every single mobile phone and laptop to make sure they were in a state where they could not emit a hefty dose of RF. Most of the smartphones on board were probably in standby (with some kind of radio emission still happening) and most laptops were probably closed but not powered down — hopefully sleeping.

The only command we’re given is to turn stuff “off” — a command increasingly ignored for its incoherence. What does it mean for a phone or iPod to be “off”? Most people don’t even know. If the command is this easy to ignore with no consequences, the likely conclusion is that the gear really isn’t a threat. But if it is, the airlines may not discover their own boneheadedness until the danger reaches some lethal saturation point.

Here’s the actual FAA regulation:

§ 121.306   Portable electronic devices.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating under this part.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to—
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the [airline] has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that [airline] operating the particular device to be used.
[Doc. No. FAA–1998–4954, 64 FR 1080, Jan. 7, 1999]

You will have noticed the date, 1999, but still, that preamble speaks volumes: “no person may operate…any portable electronic device on any US-registered civil aircraft…” followed by exception after exception. The mentality of that is old school, to put it politely. You will also note that the discretion is left up to the airline (with heavy support from the aircraft maker), layering on confusion in sugary heaps.

What is the issue? This suggests it is “interference with navigation or communication systems”, and in that case, it’s understandable that such potential for jamming is minimised during the most dangerous parts of the flight, take off and landing. All electronics give off a bit of radiation; communications devices like phones and laptops give off considerably more. Minimise the amount of RF emissions (including unpredictable radio “harmonics”) and you will reduce the chances—however unlikely in the first place—that portable electronics will threaten the safety of the flight.

That was Boeing’s recommendation to the feds 10 years ago, when mobile phones were starting to boom, and it makes sense. Unfortunately, what’s going on now is a mere pantomime true RF security. Here’s why:

Smartphones
How many people actually know how to turn off their smartphone? When I carried a BlackBerry, I never turned it off, because it took like 5 minutes to power back on. At the same time, I was always finding it fully awake in my bag or pocket, long after I thought I’d secured it. You CrackBerry addicts are making fun of me right now, and that’s fine, but the fact is, I can’t possibly be alone. How many people know about aeroplane mode on iPhones or other phones? For flight attendants, turning off the screen is all that apparently matters, but there’s no way that is truly compliant.

Laptops
When was the last time you shut off your laptop during the boarding process? When I run out of the house, I just slam the thing shut and shove it in my bag. When I am at the airport, I pop it open to do some work. So when I’m finally at an altitude where it is safe to use portable electronics, I pop it open and then remember to turn off Wi-Fi. And not so we don’t plummet out of the air—more so I can save at least some battery life. My guess is that most people who carry laptops on board just let them sleep, with Wi-Fi engaged. And on certain Vista notebooks I’ve carried, just closing the lid didn’t mean squat.

Handheld Gaming Systems
Back about 14 years ago, there were a spate of reports that Game Boys were causing interference with the operation of planes. According to Boeing, there was never any actual proof of this, though it did inspire one of the funniest Simpsons moments ever. The real joke is, back then, portable gaming systems didn’t all come with embedded Wi-Fi and Bluetooth like they do now. My guess is that many a properly stowed Nintendo DS can still sniff around the plane for cute Nintendogs or whatever, even with the lid closed.

eBook Readers
This one is going to need special attention. I often get quite a bit of quality reading done at take-off and landing, precisely because I can’t pop open a device and watch a movie or a TV show. But when I carry a Kindle or some other reader, I can’t use it during that happy time. The question is, why can’t I? With the 3G radio turned off—a very easy manoeuvre—an eBook reader uses less battery life than the Bluetooth earbud on standby that you may have forgotten to take off your ear. There is no power needed to hold a picture on e-ink, so the battery is only taxed when the page is turned. How’s this for irony? If you are looking at a page of words, your reader actually is off.

Noise-Cancelling Headphones
Here’s where most airlines get it right. Anything that takes 35 hours to drain a single AAA battery and has no inherent telecommunication function probably isn’t going to cause the plane to go into an “uncommanded roll”. Armies of Bose addicts fly friendly and unfriendly skies every day, and are generally allowed to use their own big ole cans during take-off and landing, provided they’re attached to the airlines’ audio system and not their own iPod. This kind of common sense needs to be applied to other devices.

In the end, what we’ve really got is an increasing array of devices that are replacing the books and crosswords of yore, and almost none of them have an “on-off switch” on the side. They’re powered up and doing their thing, often while still nestled inside our pockets or our bags. Some are perfectly harmless beyond a shadow of a doubt, some could easily join together to form a cloud of harmless or harmful electromagnetic radiation. So why are airlines so confused? Hell, they’ve made special dispensations permitting knitting needles, even metre-long metal suckers. Is it too much to ask that they give equal consideration to our many cherished gadgets?

(Click on the image to see it bigger.)

I have no idea whether or not all of the stats are true, but I believe the shit out of them. Peach versus baby blue is the new good versus evil. Apply haphazard census information to a bathroom guy graphic and it’s un-freggin-questionable. That’s the bathroom guy, after all. He’s never abused my trust by leading me into a women’s restroom only to laugh and laugh while recording the event for a little YouTube subscriber bait.

That’s restraint.

Having flown both types of carriers, I’d have never known that a company like Air France has 10 times the staff of a company like EasyJet. And I don’t know the last time I was served a meal on a non-international flight, no matter how large or expensive the carrier or ticket. [Flickr via Digg]

After learning that the aircraft was experiencing a technical problem that would require an eight hour delay, the as yet unidentified passenger came forward claiming to be an aircraft engineer that was qualified to work on the Boeing 757-200. After following strict procedures to confirm his credentials, the man was allowed to work on the plane. In the end, the Thomas Cook flight arrived at its destination only 35 minutes late. Needless to say, I’ll bet you can think of a personal situation where a dude like this would have come in really handy. [BBC via Slashdot]

Runway Girl Mary Kirby has been covering inflight Wi-Fi for quite a while. She notices that while Wi-Fi is going free in cafes, parks, and hotels, the airlines want you to pay.

There’s obviously a cost in maintaining and expanding the air Wi-Fi network, but who should pay for it, the airlines or you? 50-50? Would you pay extra in a ticket to get Wi-Fi access? Maybe it should be free for longer flights?

Your answer in the comments. [Runway Girl]

Personal in-flight entertainment systems are getting pretty close to ubiquitous, at least on long-haul planes. According to the NYT, in-flight wi-fi will soon be just as common. Now airlines are wondering: why not just combine the two?

In practice, that would mean a media server, mostly full of video and music content, would be added to the planes’ local networks. Instead of accessing in-flight films and music through a seatback or fold-out screen, passengers could just view it as if it were on a home server, or in a more likely implementation, through a local HTTP interface or set of client apps.

It’s an interesting idea, and one that both Aircell and Row 44, two of the biggest providers of in-flight wi-fi, are both actively considering. The main draw is cost, because a bank of hard drives and beefed up router cluster is a tiny investment compared to fitting a plane with individual passenger systems.

But there are some obvious drawbacks. The proposals talk about hosting media for playback on phones and laptops, which could create a compatibility nightmare for the airlines and passengers, and will create an IT nightmare for cabin crew. Then there’s the matter of keeping all these gadgets charged: demanding that passengers all use DC adapters to keep their smartphones and laptops charged would work, but it’s not exactly elegant.

Having locally hosted media as an option would be a nice additional perk for wi-fi users, and for airlines that don’t already have entertainment systems built into their planes it could well be a cheap way to offer their passengers something to do during long flights, but as a total replacement for kickass system like Virgin’s? Maybe not. [NYT]

AirTran said they were going to be the first to get Wi-Fi on every flight, but Virgin just ninja’ed in and beat them to it.

All 100 of Virgin’s daily flights will have Wi-Fi, costing $US12.95 for flights > 3 hours, $US9.95 for flights < 3 hours, $US5.95 for red-eyes and $US7.95 if you just want to use your mobile phone/PSP. Virgin’s already our favourite airline just for being a nice airline, so being able to get Wi-Fi on all flights just makes it better. (AU: US only)[Virgin America]

Pet Airways was designed to cater to, yes, your best friend. With potty breaks and attendants checking on your pet’s comfort, they’ll travel in the lap of luxury. Sort of.

Because no humans besides the flight crew are allowed—and because there aren’t exactly effective seat-belts that’ll keep your pets from wrecking havoc on the plane—your dogs and cats will still have to travel locked up in a carrier. But at least they’ll be seated in the main cabin with temperatures that are “just right,” with fresh circulating airways away from the cargo hold. After all, says the cheesy announcer, “Our pets are not luggage… They’re paw-sengers!” Get it?

Pet Airways will begin service this coming July, in limited runs from LA, Chicago and NYC, starting at $US150 for a one-way ticket—actually not a lot more than what the airlines charge to stick your cat in the cargo hold. [Pet Airways via Laughing Squid]

Chinese officials have reported a UFO sighting while they were on an aeroplane and, in case anyone thought it was just a case of baijiu-induced hallucinations, they snapped pictures of it too.

In a report from Xinhua, the government-sponsored news agency, a group of journalists and officials were on a Southern Airlines flight in late February when one of them noticed an unusual luminous object travelling alongside their vessel.

After excitedly pointing it out to everyone around him, one journalist managed to snap a few photos before the object suddenly changed directions and swerved north east. The witnesses debated whether it had been a plane – but later, another plane did appear and everyone agreed that it looked nothing like the unidentified object they’d just seen.

Altogether, the alleged UFO sighting lasted about a minute. Any idea what it could have been? Aliens? Solar flares? AMERICAN SPIES?! [Xinhua]